Abstract
We took a large step into the dark when we first sought to develop the Citizenship after the Nation-State (CANS) project. Multi-team comparative social science is a notoriously complex business — and while the collaborative design of a single survey research instrument to be fielded across linguistic and political borders was fascinating, it was also very demanding. The complexity of these challenges was increased because this kind of research had never before been attempted at the regional level. In attempting to do so, we had to challenge scepticism — or even hostility — of two intertwined kinds. The first is a species of normative hostility. Many commentators treat regions as atavistic, normatively dubious polítical throwbacks. So, for example, Ralf Dahrendorf called regionalism ‘the worst formula of all’ because ‘it takes us back to tribes on the one hand and forward to provisions without entitlements on the other’ (1994, p. 17). While making an important call for more empirical research, geographer Joe Painter echoed this normative anxiety when he referred to ‘ethnic regionalism of an essentialist or primordial type’ (2002, p. 109).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Daniel Wincott and Richard Wyn Jones
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wincott, D., Jones, R.W. (2014). Conclusion: Citizenship After the Nation State: The 2009 Survey and Beyond. In: Henderson, A., Jeffery, C., Wincott, D. (eds) Citizenship after the Nation State. The Comparative Territorial Politics series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314994_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314994_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-33378-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-31499-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political Science CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)